A recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reaffirms its position that only in rare cases will it be appropriate to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of two lower tribunals.¹ The Privy Council found Byers and others v Chen Ningning to be one such case on the basis that an error in findings of fact as to the Respondent’s status as a director had been made by the first instance trial judge and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Introduction

A recent decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has confirmed that, whilst the courts of the British Virgin Islands (BVI) will recognise the appointment of foreign representatives (including liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy) as having status in the BVI in accordance with his or her appointment by a foreign court, they may only provide assistance to representatives from certain designated countries.

What a creditor needs to know about liquidating GUIDE an insolvent Cayman company

Last reviewed: December 2020

Contents

Introduct ion When is a company insolvent? What is a statutory demand?

On 26 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) came into force, introducing a number of temporary measures to assist companies facing financial difficulties as a consequence of COVID-19. These temporary provisions apply retroactively to cover the period commencing 1 March 2020 (26 March 2020 with respect to corporate governance provisions) and ending on 30 September 2020 (the Relevant Period).

On 25 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) received Royal Assent, and the majority of its provisions are now in force. The Act has introduced a number of permanent reforms and temporary measures, which together represent the most significant change to English insolvency law in nearly 20 years.

Permanent Reforms

The permanent reforms include:

It is common in a corporate Chapter 11 bankruptcy to sell substantially all of a debtor’s assets. When the sale is supervised and approved by a bankruptcy court, purchasers will be protected from subsequent attacks on the sale or its process.

Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

The sole shareholder of several closely held corporate entities engages in a fraudulent transfer by extinguishing one entity’s right to payment from a third party in exchange for the release of liabilities owed by other entities to that same third party. In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al., __ N.J. __ (Mar. 30, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court voided such a transfer against a Chapter 7 debtor corporation whose sole asset was a $600,000 loan receivable purportedly cancelled by the release.

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)1 on March 21, reversing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of an order approving the distribution of the proceeds of settlement of bankruptcy estate causes of action to general unsecured creditors via structured dismissal, with no distribution to holders of priority wage claims.

The Court framed the question presented, and its ruling, very narrowly—twice. First:

In a very recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a negative inference to an exception to a negative covenant prevented a company from undertaking a proposed restructuring transaction. We find the case unique not because of the result necessarily, but rather because the court used the negative inference to override another express provision in the Credit Agreement.